Try downloading a document you wrote in Google Docs as "OpenOffice" (which more appropriately should referred to as ODF or OpenDocument Format). You'll notice that the footnotes are represented as a link (text:a), to a bookmark (text:bookmark) which visually somewhat looks like a footnote.
A real footnote as described in the OpenDocument specifications (chapter 5.3) is represented as a text:note and whose exact rendering (from what I can tell) is handled by the implementation.
Here's the associated XML:
Google Docs:
<text:p text:style-name="P1">Here's an example of a footnote.<text:a xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="#FOOTNOTE-1"><text:span text:style-name="T1">1</text:span></text:a></text:p> <text:p text:style-name="Horizontal_20_Line"/> <text:list text:style-name="L1">
<text:list-item>
<text:p text:style-name="P2">
<text:bookmark text:name="FOOTNOTE-1"/>
This is supposed to be a footnote.
</text:p>
</text:list-item> </text:list>
OpenDocument (generated by OpenOffice.org 2.4):
<text:p text:style-name="Standard">Here's an example of a footnote.
<text:note text:id="ftn1" text:note-class="footnote">
<text:note-citation>1</text:note-citation>
<text:note-body>
<text:p text:style-name="Footnote">This is supposed to be a footnote.</text:p>
</text:note-body>
</text:note> </text:p>
I'm quite disappointed in how people seem to be considering these statistics a valid indicator of any sort without being familiar with their research methodology.
They claim their sample size is 160 million visitors, but they mostly collect the data from the browsers of site visitors to their so-called exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers. What if Linux users simply aren't visiting any of these sites, wouldn't that skew the data? That certainly wouldn't surprise me.
To be able to judge the data for what it's worth I'd need a lot more information about their methodology than what is given.
Also, how do you know FOXNews.com is using HitsLink? Indirectly through another ad service? I never heard of them before you linked them, so enlighten me.
Also note that the U.S. actually supplied or played a significant role in acquiring these weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and from what I know the leftover weapon caches that were found weren't actually usable any more (also there was no clear intent on the part of the Iraqi regime to use them).
Though obviously we should not forget about the role others, such as Singapore, France and Germany and many many others, played in supplying Saddam (the obvious aggressor) with weapons.
But on Jan. 31, this bipartisan dike finally sprang a leak. Howard Teicher, who served on Reagan's National Security Council staff, offered an affidavit in the Teledyne case that declared that CIA director William J. Casey and his deputy, Robert M. Gates, "authorized, approved and assisted" delivery of cluster bombs to Iraq through Cardoen (In These Times, 3/6/95).
I took a look at at the statistics from Iraq Body Count and these seem to corroborate. Note however that the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count states that "Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site. ".
I haven't actually been following the whole situation lately, most of my knowledge stems from mid 2007, but there are still some critical voices. For example, take a look at this documentary by a Iraqi journalist with the Guardian from March who investigated U.S. claims concerning the success of the surge. In the beginning of the video concerning Baghdad he states: "It has been transformed into a city of walls.".
That might give you some more insight into the some of the reasons behind the statistics. There are a couple of more videos that I know of. Though note it was a while ago that I saw these, but I believe the information it offers is still quite important.
Such as the following short news report from March 2007, a quote:
"Here in Anbar province America cannot defeat Al-Qaeda with the troops it has, so it's turned to the tribes. Baathists and nationalist insurgents of the Salvation Council. Virtually contracting out parts of the battle against Al-Qaeda to tribal fighters. The deal is simple America gives local leaders free reign as long as they root out and kill Al-Qaeda."
Another (more lengthy report) aired on the September 2007 edition of People & Power, a news program by Al Jazeera English. It's made available through YouTube, Part I and Part II..
Here's a transcript from one of the interviews with some sort of local leader:
Q: Which tribes signed the agreement today? A: The Tamimi, Zobai, Al Obeidi, Al Jumeilli, Fallahi.
Q: How many of the tribes were once involved in fighting the Americans? A: Your time is up. It's $100 for an extra minute.
And the introduction from Part II:
"In defending its Iraq strategy the Bush administration increasingly points to success in turning Sunni tribes that fought an insurgency against them into allies in combating Al-Qaeda. Embedded with the U.S. military filmmakers Rick Rowley and David Enders witnessed the strategy and practice at first hand. They discovered that Shiite populations are paying the price for the peace that now reigns in areas where the Sunni insurgency once raged. And that sectarian hatred can still easily erupt as they found out after rushing to the scene of a car bombing with the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment."
Note that the sheik interviewed in the video (but not the one I transcripted above) and apparently portrayed by the U.S. as a key figure in controlling the tribes was assassinated shortly after arriving in Iraq.
Also I'm not sure if Angelina Jolie was amazed, her article in the Washington Post uses words such as "positive" and "hopeful". Amazed might be too strong of a word in this case.
Note that the MIT license is permissive, which wouldn't require Microsoft to actually share the source upon distribution (also note that Microsoft used to include a BSD licensed networking stack).
However while looking at the exceptions noted on that licensing page it looks like Paint.NET's license isn't compatible with Section 6 from the Open Source definition.
* Exception 3: Although the Paint.NET source code distribution includes the GPC source code, use of the GPC code in any other commercial application is not permitted without a GPC Commercial Use Licence from The University of Manchester. For more information, please refer to the GPC website at: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~toby/alan/software/
You'd have to replace the GPC library it includes.
Ignoring everything else for a second. That kind of money would allow you to hire more than 3000 people working full-time at a yearly salary of 20.000 Euro (that's more than I make), or 52 people full-time for most of their working life (60 years) at the same salary.
The Government's cyber-safety funding will provide $49 million [24 million Euro] to law enforcement, ensuring that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Child Protection Operations Team can expand its capacity to detect and investigate online child abuse, with 91 additional AFP members dedicated to online child protection by 2011.
And another factoid (not related to this specific plan perse) from the Electronic Frontiers Australia that:
Filter vendor's claims about the suitability of their product need to be treated with extreme caution given filter vendors stand to make a very large amount of money if their product were to be selected for a government mandated system. Of the estimated $33 million per annum cost (as at 2004) stated in the Government report, $14.3 million per annum was the cost of filtering software licences that would be paid to filter vendor/s.
And there are surely Open Source products that are not free. For example non-commercial clauses.
Considering the fact you actually capitalized the words Open Source I just wanted to point out that such a clause would go against the Open Source Definition as published by Open Source Initiative.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
After watching the entire 60 minute Google Talk I linked above I have to honestly say that he doesn't quite come off as a cook and might even make some interesting points.
However, I still don't think he "Gets It" (TM), where it is the Internet. At times he makes sense, but at others he simply incoherently rants away. Later in this post I'll provide an example of this since I've transcripted some of the interesting parts from the Google Talk.
We'll start of with an interesting statement that to me certainly makes sense.
[25:23] - Andrew Keen: "This Web 2.0 media is indeed compounding media illiteracy. And I think it's media illiteracy that I most care about in this book, because I think that is one of the most fundamental problems in America. It's what got is into the mess in Iraq, it's what corrupts American politics. The idea that people really don't know what's going on. Television doesn't do a good job. I think mainstream newspapers do. I think serious publishing books do. But my sense is that the democratized Internet is increasingly miscellaneous, unreliable, corrupt and trivial."
A good point which I completely agree with came from somebody from the audience:
[26:09] - Person from the audience: "So your argument is reminding me a lot of some research I did my last year in college, which was a year ago. It sounds a lot like the crisis librarians think they're in right now, in that they're increasingly dealing with a population of students -- even at the college level -- who are completely information illiterate. I guess their phrase is "Information Versus Media".
Just in the last couple of days I've been helping some friends who are in college with papers and I've been surprised at the same sort of sense that they don't even know how to start using resources, or make sense of how you can use the Internet to get to credible information.
But it makes me feel like the problem isn't with the Internet itself but with the systems we have in place to educate people about how to discern that information and perhaps we should be focusing on the correct way to do that in our society versus -- I guess -- looking at the problems on the Internet itself."
His response to this statement is precisely what illustrates that he doesn't "Get It".
[27:08] - Andrew Keen: "I think that's a very fair point and I appreciate the fact that your research is really strengthening my case.
Let me explain that my book is not a Luddite's text. It's not anti-technology, I'm as pro technology as anyone. I have my gadgets, I have my computers and my fancy home theater and all the rest of it.
I see the Internet as a mirror. When we look at the Internet we're looking at ourselves. And when we look at Web 2.0, obviously some of the things we see are wonderful. We see energy, excitement, we see a youthful culture.
But when we look at Web 2.0 we're also looking at ourselves. We see an addiction to pornography, we see massive online gambling, we see ubiquitous anonymity. An anonymous culture in which people seem to be perpetually insulting one another.
We see the fragmentation of taste. A fragmentation so dramatic in some respects that what we're seeing is 250 million channels. We see a media which is increasingly defined as an echo chamber, in which the ideal of the Web as a platform for conversation and for the free exchange of information has become a place where we simply go to conform what we already believe."
However, I think another valid point he makes concerns the way Google gathers information or more importantly how they store it (I can't be bothered to look up their data retention policy at the moment to verify). I snipped some sections here and there ([...]) to try and convey his point somewhat better, if you want you can listen to the original.
If everyone blocks ads in video sites, the video sites will simply go away.
I don't agree with your conclusion. Advertising certainly isn't the only method to provide funding to sustain an activity. I can only say that I'd be quite contend with having the traditional and certainly the most visible and annoying method of advertising, that of commercial interruptions, disappear. Oh and don't forget about web banners and sorts.
Even though one could argue that commercials are perhaps one of the more "honest" forms of advertising, since content is relatively clearly seperated from advertisement compared to for example product placement, or perhaps user tracking/analysis (a la Google or your local supermarket chain).
"I think we've got to learn to read and listen to professionals rather than ourselves, because ultimately they're the ones who are experts, they're the ones who know how to collect the news, they're the ones who know how to make great music and compelling movies not ourselves. "
"The beauty of mainstream media is that you have editors, you have gatekeepers, who are relatively objective, who are professional, who ensure that the majority of the news is unbiased."
Perhaps one of these days I'll actually read into this guy some more under the guise of "Know Thy Enemy", but at the moment I have better things to do with my time.
Extremely off-topic but I don't think anyone will notice.
The only really sane response in that Digg thread is the one from popfrogs, but then again what do you expect from Digg? Here's his response by the way:
The point remains that a man was high up in a tree. No weapons. He's not going anywhere anytime soon. If you're going to Tase him, you slowly draw out the taser, check if it's on or armed or whatever, then take your sweet time aiming at him before firing. The nutjob in the tree is lucky the cop was a bad shot, otherwise he'd be dead.
Seriously though, why even shoot anything at the guy? If you wait long enough the dumbass will get hungry and climb down. All you had to do is call the catering van with some smoked sausages and bring a giant net from the fire department. Then you have lunch and maybe even dinner while you wait. What an easy and fun day it could have been for everyone.
This response obviously applies to the incident inf New York with Inman Morales aswell. Simply replace tree with ledge. The whole reasoning that he could be a "danger to others" with a "two-metre-long fluorescent light" is ridiculous.
Don't interpret this is an answer to your question though, I knew you were being sarcastic;-)
From the context I gather he used one set but still had a couple of unopened/unused left, he decided to return those.
I bought a bunch of compact fluorescent bulbs [...] I immediately demanded a refund, telling the assistant manager that she can "sell these unopened, like-new bulbs to somebody else, and there's no valid reason to turn me down".
For the first point, the GPL does not require changes to be merged back into the main development area. It allows (and encourages) projects to FORK the source code into new projects when different applications are desired.
Note the emphasized bit. I'm certainly not aware of this. Forking might be unavoidable in some cases, but as far as I know the GPL (the license) doesn't actually have an opinion on the matter.
Could you elaborate? As in, point to the relevant sections of the license. Even though the license is quite readable, I'm not entirely willing to spend an hour or so analyzing it.
I can only guess that you're referring to the fact that the Affero GPL considers providing users access to a running application over the network as distribution.
If that is the case I have to disagree on this being a usage clause (see the GPL FAQ).
You can't deny that Google, with Chris DiBona as their open source program manager, certainly _contributes_ a lot to open source projects or what is regarded the open source community at large. From project hosting (Google Code), to Summer of Code, to hosting events, to individual sponsorships, to participating in standardization organizations (OASIS, W3C), to funding foundations (such as Mozilla).
SOME FIRMS MODIFY OPEN SOURCE CODE; MOST DON'T Sixty-four percent of our experts say that they view source code; 40% modify source code (see Figure 4). Firms that modify source code are also likely to be bigger open source users -- they use almost four open source products on average, twice as many as those that don't view or modify code.
And you seem to be forgetting the fact that opening up source code allows other software development companies (or individuals) to work on it.
I just wanted to point out it's been around for a while now, I actually used it to analyze the Republican debates. Since these new videos aren't debates they don't include a transcript analyzer like the previous ones did.
Take a look at the same tool for the November the 28th CNN/Youtube Republican debates (don't actually watch it though, I beg you). It includes both an interactive transcript (including skipping) and an analyzer showing among other things the time spent on the questions per candidate basis and highlighting to see when they spoke during the debate.
Here's a little something I at the time looked at. Ron Paul was only given 7 minutes of speaking time while the so called front runners were given around 14 minutes, and most of the questions were hostile in nature. Even the moderator had more speaking time than Ron Paul. They also didn't follow their own rules and give him time to respond when Tancredo directly mentioned him, after which he wasn't given a question for 25 full minutes.
If you want to access a website that uses a SSL certificate signed by CAcert, you might get an SSL warning. We are sorry, but currently that's still 'normal' as mainstream browsers don't automatically include the CAcert Root Certificate yet. -- http://wiki.cacert.org/wiki/BrowserClients
People seem to be constantly using ASCII as a synonym for plain text, not the actual character encoding. So, just imagine the GP meant Unicode instead.
@-moz-document domain(slashdot.org) { /* Override the default boxing bar */ .contain { border-color: -moz-use-text-color #FFFFFF rgb(255, 255, 255) !important; }
/* Override the boxing bar when replying */ .inline_comment { border: 0px; margin: 1.5em; } }
Rules without !important are overruled by author rules if the author sets any. Rules with !important overrule author rules.
The only thing that makes userContent.css an excruciatingly painful experience is the fact that you actually have to _restart_ Firefox after making any changes. How 1994 is that?
Why don't you try reading for a change? This point has already been reiterated by many others in this thread but let try spelling it out for you once more: You're making a claim that the article you're linking doesn't support.
Not only that but as I pointed out the photograph itself is part of a website devoted to the complete opposite of whatever you're preaching.
The purpose of this page is to provide a counter to the mythology that "journals were stuffed full of articles predicting an imminent ice age in the '70's". [...] Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No
Slashdot Mirror
It's had footnotes for a few weeks.
Try downloading a document you wrote in Google Docs as "OpenOffice" (which more appropriately should referred to as ODF or OpenDocument Format). You'll notice that the footnotes are represented as a link (text:a), to a bookmark (text:bookmark) which visually somewhat looks like a footnote.
A real footnote as described in the OpenDocument specifications (chapter 5.3) is represented as a text:note and whose exact rendering (from what I can tell) is handled by the implementation.
Here's the associated XML:
Google Docs:
<text:p text:style-name="P1">Here's an example of a footnote.<text:a xlink:type="simple" xlink:href="#FOOTNOTE-1"><text:span text:style-name="T1">1</text:span></text:a></text:p>
<text:p text:style-name="Horizontal_20_Line"/>
<text:list text:style-name="L1">
<text:list-item>
<text:p text:style-name="P2">
<text:bookmark text:name="FOOTNOTE-1"/>
This is supposed to be a footnote.
</text:p>
</text:list-item>
</text:list>
OpenDocument (generated by OpenOffice.org 2.4):
<text:p text:style-name="Standard">Here's an example of a footnote.
<text:note text:id="ftn1" text:note-class="footnote">
<text:note-citation>1</text:note-citation>
<text:note-body>
<text:p text:style-name="Footnote">This is supposed to be a footnote.</text:p>
</text:note-body>
</text:note>
</text:p>
I'd certainly be interested in some more information regarding how Canonical spends funds acquired through donations.
I'm quite disappointed in how people seem to be considering these statistics a valid indicator of any sort without being familiar with their research methodology.
They claim their sample size is 160 million visitors, but they mostly collect the data from the browsers of site visitors to their so-called exclusive on-demand network of live stats customers. What if Linux users simply aren't visiting any of these sites, wouldn't that skew the data? That certainly wouldn't surprise me.
To be able to judge the data for what it's worth I'd need a lot more information about their methodology than what is given.
Also, how do you know FOXNews.com is using HitsLink? Indirectly through another ad service? I never heard of them before you linked them, so enlighten me.
Despite that we still found missiles filled with Sarin gas, documentation for WMD, storage facilities for WMD, training manuals for WMD, etc.
Could you please provide a citation? Also most importantly those weren't the WMDs you were looking for ("But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.").
Also note that the U.S. actually supplied or played a significant role in acquiring these weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and from what I know the leftover weapon caches that were found weren't actually usable any more (also there was no clear intent on the part of the Iraqi regime to use them).
Though obviously we should not forget about the role others, such as Singapore, France and Germany and many many others, played in supplying Saddam (the obvious aggressor) with weapons.
Here's an interesting statement from Iraqgate: Confession and Cover-Up, though these aren't the weapons you mentioned.
The Wikipedia article is a good start, follow the sources given.
I took a look at at the statistics from Iraq Body Count and these seem to corroborate. Note however that the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count states that "Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site. ".
I haven't actually been following the whole situation lately, most of my knowledge stems from mid 2007, but there are still some critical voices. For example, take a look at this documentary by a Iraqi journalist with the Guardian from March who investigated U.S. claims concerning the success of the surge. In the beginning of the video concerning Baghdad he states: "It has been transformed into a city of walls.".
Note the following footage from before the invasion in 2003.
That might give you some more insight into the some of the reasons behind the statistics. There are a couple of more videos that I know of. Though note it was a while ago that I saw these, but I believe the information it offers is still quite important.
Such as the following short news report from March 2007, a quote:
Another (more lengthy report) aired on the September 2007 edition of People & Power, a news program by Al Jazeera English. It's made available through YouTube, Part I and Part II..
Here's a transcript from one of the interviews with some sort of local leader:
And the introduction from Part II:
Note that the sheik interviewed in the video (but not the one I transcripted above) and apparently portrayed by the U.S. as a key figure in controlling the tribes was assassinated shortly after arriving in Iraq.
Also I'm not sure if Angelina Jolie was amazed, her article in the Washington Post uses words such as "positive" and "hopeful". Amazed might be too strong of a word in this case.
I'm interested in your comments.
Note that the MIT license is permissive, which wouldn't require Microsoft to actually share the source upon distribution (also note that Microsoft used to include a BSD licensed networking stack).
However while looking at the exceptions noted on that licensing page it looks like Paint.NET's license isn't compatible with Section 6 from the Open Source definition.
You'd have to replace the GPC library it includes.
Ignoring everything else for a second. That kind of money would allow you to hire more than 3000 people working full-time at a yearly salary of 20.000 Euro (that's more than I make), or 52 people full-time for most of their working life (60 years) at the same salary.
I couldn't quickly locate any budgets and only found a press release by Hon Stephen Conroy stating that:
And another factoid (not related to this specific plan perse) from the Electronic Frontiers Australia that:
Considering the fact you actually capitalized the words Open Source I just wanted to point out that such a clause would go against the Open Source Definition as published by Open Source Initiative.
More specifically Section 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor:
Replying to my own post here.
After watching the entire 60 minute Google Talk I linked above I have to honestly say that he doesn't quite come off as a cook and might even make some interesting points.
However, I still don't think he "Gets It" (TM), where it is the Internet. At times he makes sense, but at others he simply incoherently rants away. Later in this post I'll provide an example of this since I've transcripted some of the interesting parts from the Google Talk.
We'll start of with an interesting statement that to me certainly makes sense.
A good point which I completely agree with came from somebody from the audience:
His response to this statement is precisely what illustrates that he doesn't "Get It".
However, I think another valid point he makes concerns the way Google gathers information or more importantly how they store it (I can't be bothered to look up their data retention policy at the moment to verify). I snipped some sections here and there ([...]) to try and convey his point somewhat better, if you want you can listen to the original.
I don't agree with your conclusion. Advertising certainly isn't the only method to provide funding to sustain an activity. I can only say that I'd be quite contend with having the traditional and certainly the most visible and annoying method of advertising, that of commercial interruptions, disappear. Oh and don't forget about web banners and sorts.
Even though one could argue that commercials are perhaps one of the more "honest" forms of advertising, since content is relatively clearly seperated from advertisement compared to for example product placement, or perhaps user tracking/analysis (a la Google or your local supermarket chain).
Ah yes, the guy who wrote the book titled "The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture" or the full subtitle of "How blogs, MySpace, YouTube, and the rest of today's user-generated media are destroying our economy, our culture, and our values".
Some more great quotes from Andrew Keen in an interview with Paula Newton on CNN.
Perhaps one of these days I'll actually read into this guy some more under the guise of "Know Thy Enemy", but at the moment I have better things to do with my time.
He's also given a talk at Google by the way.
Extremely off-topic but I don't think anyone will notice.
The only really sane response in that Digg thread is the one from popfrogs, but then again what do you expect from Digg? Here's his response by the way:
This response obviously applies to the incident inf New York with Inman Morales aswell. Simply replace tree with ledge. The whole reasoning that he could be a "danger to others" with a "two-metre-long fluorescent light" is ridiculous.
Don't interpret this is an answer to your question though, I knew you were being sarcastic ;-)
Here's the video on LiveLeak. Nothing really graphic since the guy filming turns the camera away and his view is obscured by a car.
What a jackasses though.
From the context I gather he used one set but still had a couple of unopened/unused left, he decided to return those.
I bought a bunch of compact fluorescent bulbs [...] I immediately demanded a refund, telling the assistant manager that she can "sell these unopened, like-new bulbs to somebody else, and there's no valid reason to turn me down".
For the first point, the GPL does not require changes to be merged back into the main development area. It allows (and encourages) projects to FORK the source code into new projects when different applications are desired.
Note the emphasized bit. I'm certainly not aware of this. Forking might be unavoidable in some cases, but as far as I know the GPL (the license) doesn't actually have an opinion on the matter.
Could you elaborate? As in, point to the relevant sections of the license. Even though the license is quite readable, I'm not entirely willing to spend an hour or so analyzing it.
I can only guess that you're referring to the fact that the Affero GPL considers providing users access to a running application over the network as distribution.
If that is the case I have to disagree on this being a usage clause (see the GPL FAQ).
I guess there's Gears, Android, their patches for Wine and MySQL, as of late there's also Chromium (with the v8 JavaScript engine). They probably have more, see Google and Open Source.
All in all I think they have some 190 open source projects/components/tools/whatchamacallit, a lot of these are Google oriented but there are some more generic ones. Maybe a result of their 20%/80% thing.
You can't deny that Google, with Chris DiBona as their open source program manager, certainly _contributes_ a lot to open source projects or what is regarded the open source community at large. From project hosting (Google Code), to Summer of Code, to hosting events, to individual sponsorships, to participating in standardization organizations (OASIS, W3C), to funding foundations (such as Mozilla).
But on the other hand, a Forrester research report from September 2003 (available through ZDNet's Whitepapers if you have an account) stated:
And you seem to be forgetting the fact that opening up source code allows other software development companies (or individuals) to work on it.
I just wanted to point out it's been around for a while now, I actually used it to analyze the Republican debates. Since these new videos aren't debates they don't include a transcript analyzer like the previous ones did.
Take a look at the same tool for the November the 28th CNN/Youtube Republican debates (don't actually watch it though, I beg you). It includes both an interactive transcript (including skipping) and an analyzer showing among other things the time spent on the questions per candidate basis and highlighting to see when they spoke during the debate.
Here's a little something I at the time looked at. Ron Paul was only given 7 minutes of speaking time while the so called front runners were given around 14 minutes, and most of the questions were hostile in nature. Even the moderator had more speaking time than Ron Paul. They also didn't follow their own rules and give him time to respond when Tancredo directly mentioned him, after which he wasn't given a question for 25 full minutes.
Ouch!
the point is that FSF/RMS would love nothing better than to take that away from me, as demonstrated by many of their statements
What statements would that be?
People seem to be constantly using ASCII as a synonym for plain text, not the actual character encoding. So, just imagine the GP meant Unicode instead.
~/.mozilla/firefox/<profile>/chrome/userContent.css
/* Override the default boxing bar */
.contain {
/* Override the boxing bar when replying */
.inline_comment {
@-moz-document domain(slashdot.org) {
border-color: -moz-use-text-color #FFFFFF rgb(255, 255, 255) !important;
}
border: 0px;
margin: 1.5em;
}
}
Rules without !important are overruled by author rules if the author sets any. Rules with !important overrule author rules.
The only thing that makes userContent.css an excruciatingly painful experience is the fact that you actually have to _restart_ Firefox after making any changes. How 1994 is that?
Why don't you try reading for a change? This point has already been reiterated by many others in this thread but let try spelling it out for you once more: You're making a claim that the article you're linking doesn't support.
Not only that but as I pointed out the photograph itself is part of a website devoted to the complete opposite of whatever you're preaching.
You'll make a fine addition to my foe list.
The parent is so far off base it's not even funny. Just take a look at the website the photo of the National Geographic Magazine was located at. (here's the page for the November, 1976 edition). Here's a summary of the website by the way: